Do Businesses Have the Right to Refuse Service Based on Moral/Religious Objections?

[AtLast]

From a legal perspective- also depending on laws/regs within municipal/state/federal boundaries and jurisdictions, this could vary. In some instances, a business owner can refuse service legally.

But it sure can take on some personal issues- June's example states this.

There are "service refusal" laws for example, having to do with public health- like no service in restaurants without shoes and shirts. But, historically, racial segregation has played a role in in the US about this issue. I'd have to be stupid to think that some of those "service refusal" signs in businesses have been or are not directed at not serving POC.

I certainly still see "We refuse the right to refuse service to anyone" signs all over in businesses. Probably because of my age and being an activist during the late 60's and 70's, my response to these signs is different than for a lot of younger people. I immediately see race/ethnicity variable when I see these signs. I do not get these "vibes" if a sign simply points to the health regs about shirts and shoes. I also know that there are laws/regs in some places in which it is illegal to post the "We refuse the right to refuse service to anyone" sign. The "anyone" is the problem.

Another thought- I know that I could have subjected to legal action (as well as licensure infractions) if I had refused to see patients for psychotherapy based upon their religious beliefs.

[Soon]

Originally Posted by AtLastHome

From a legal perspective- also depending on laws/regs within municipal/state/federal boundaries and jurisdictions, this could vary. In some instances, a business owner can refuse service legally.

I did write, in the body of my text, regardless of the laws in where you live, what is your personal belief regarding this situation.

I know certain areas are protected in this matter, our country (Canada) is a bit more complicated as there are federal protections protecting equal access to service as well as protections for practicing one's religious beliefs.

Thanks for your views providing some historical allowance for your perceptions/beliefs.

I admit--I'm surprised by the poll numbers, but it does make me happy that I put it out there!

[AtLast]

Originally Posted by HowSoonIsNow

I did write, in the body of my text, regardless of the laws in where you live, what is your personal belief regarding this situation.

I know certain areas are protected in this matter, our country (Canada) is a bit more complicated as there are federal protections protecting equal access to service as well as protections for practicing one's religious beliefs.

Thanks for your views providing some historical allowance for your perceptions/beliefs.

I admit--I'm surprised by the poll numbers, but it does make me happy that I put it out there!

Whoops- sorry. Yes, it is good to put it out there.

Personally, I'd have to say no (I actually checked the item with "other"). My personal response is due to my historical perspective and race/ethnicity in the US. I can't seem to get past the history!

But, I also know that under some circumstances (refer to June's example, once more), I probably would "refuse" if I was asked to do something that just was against my values and I felt I could somehow be associated with it. I would also say that "it might be better for you to go to another business for that."

[undone]

It is sad that it happened to a couple in love trying to plan a very happy very special day to be celebrated and of course think the shop owner should be ashamed of themselves. I also think that the couple in question ought to be relived that it came up in the beginning, for a few reasons first of course that it was not something found out at the time of service and then had an uncomfortable situation then and there, but also that they were not spending hard earned cash with some one with what I would consider to be a narrow mind, I would rather my money perhaps stay with some one more like minded to my self a business that did not have such "values" or judgments.

I have seen in the last 5 years similar incidents in the Seattle area, where a couple was forced to leave I believe a major football or baseball game, the reason was because they had shared a kiss I think it was just a short kiss if I remember correctly. There is a casino in the same area that was notorious for escorting same sex couples out of the establishment as well for no particular reason.

But similarly was it 5 years ago one of the two big names for the Philly steak and cheese sandwiches did refuse service to a customer because they would not order in English. Said he was not required to maintain staff that had spoke in various languages, he was proud to live and work in the US, this was in the city of Philadelphia.

Yes it is a sad thing to contemplate and why it should concern anyone else about the reasons or goings on of a privet event just that they were asked to help decorate something, however would we also say the same thing about those that control things such as air travel, boarder patrols banking, or other businesses that root out criminal activities.

I would not want to share my paycheck in paying for any service including the government that felt they were able to judge me and the people I share my life with. I originally thought yes of course a person should chose whom they provide a service to because everything business or not on some level is personal, but then I read atlasthome's post and it opened that dirty box that made me remember that it is not just about same sex relationships it about all the was we separate and label people white, black, brown, gay, femme, queer, bi, butch, tree hugger, liberal, conservative... It would have to encompass all of it. So I have been forced to reconsidered my original reaction and thoughts.

I have to say that no it is not okay, because we can not trust that some one would not extend it to mean they can say your shoes are offensive to me because they have sparkles on them or don’t have laces in them (yhep I mean this to be trivial) they would easily hide the personal reasoning's behind the legally allowed ones, switching one as an excuse for the other.

Originally Posted by AtLastHome

From a legal perspective- also depending on laws/regs within municipal/state/federal boundaries and jurisdictions, this could vary. In some instances, a business owner can refuse service legally.

But it sure can take on some personal issues- June's example states this.

There are "service refusal" laws for example, having to do with public health- like no service in restaurants without shoes and shirts. But, historically, racial segregation has played a role in in the US about this issue. I'd have to be stupid to think that some of those "service refusal" signs in businesses have been or are not directed at not serving POC.

I certainly still see "We refuse the right to refuse service to anyone" signs all over in businesses. Probably because of my age and being an activist during the late 60's and 70's, my response to these signs is different than for a lot of younger people. I immediately see race/ethnicity variable when I see these signs. I do not get these "vibes" if a sign simply points to the health regs about shirts and shoes. I also know that there are laws/regs in some places in which it is illegal to post the "We refuse the right to refuse service to anyone" sign. The "anyone" is the problem.

Another thought- I know that I could have subjected to legal action (as well as licensure infractions) if I had refused to see patients for psychotherapy based upon their religious beliefs.

[Medusa]

I'd probably err on the side of the business owner, even if in this case I don't care for their reasoning.

I think about how I would feel as the owner of this site if the Federal government came and told me that I had to allow x, y, or z people.

There was an article several years ago about a restaurant owner who had a very upscale establishment that disallowed children. A couple who demanded to bring their children inside sued the crap out of them - I'm going to have to look it up because I can't remember if they won or not but I did remember thinking that the restaurant owner should have the right to create whatever ambience in their establishment that they saw fit without the courts telling them otherwise.

Would it piss me off if a business refused to serve me or significantly altered the services provided to me because of their religion or me being Gay? Probably. But I think a good example of this is that there is a bookstore here in town called "Hastings" that does not have a Gay and Lesbian section of books- so I get to make the choice to withdraw my Gay dollars and spend them elsewhere.

[Spork]

Like many here, I think the business should have the right to deny service, but it has to be stated before you take the client. And, needless to say, it should be approached in a respectful manner.

[suebee]

Wow! I deliberately didn't look at the poll results or the other posts before my initial response. I would never have expected this kind of response as a community. Surprising.

Originally Posted by Linus

And if I can also add, in Canada, religious organizations can choose to not marry a same-sex couple (religious freedom) and for that reason, if that can be allowed, the businesses should have that right as well.

If I was a business owner in Canada I would also have the right to refuse business to straight married if I wanted to.

And if K and I get married in Canada, we'd make sure that all those we chose to business with us were supportive. I certainly wouldn't choose someone who isn't supportive.

I don't care for discrimination on religious grounds, but there has to be some allowance for religious freedom. It should be added that it's only religious institutions who have the right to refuse on religious grounds. A case was played out not too long ago (in Alberta I believe) where a marriage commissioner refused to perform his duties based on his religious beliefs (refused to marry a gay couple). His case went to court and was not found to have merit. My take: if you can't do your job based on your religious beliefs, especially your PUBLIC SERVICE job, where you supposedly work FOR the people - get another job.

Originally Posted by Medusa

I'd probably err on the side of the business owner, even if in this case I don't care for their reasoning.

I think about how I would feel as the owner of this site if the Federal government came and told me that I had to allow x, y, or z people.

There was an article several years ago about a restaurant owner who had a very upscale establishment that disallowed children. A couple who demanded to bring their children inside sued the crap out of them - I'm going to have to look it up because I can't remember if they won or not but I did remember thinking that the restaurant owner should have the right to create whatever ambience in their establishment that they saw fit without the courts telling them otherwise.

Would it piss me off if a business refused to serve me or significantly altered the services provided to me because of their religion or me being Gay? Probably. But I think a good example of this is that there is a bookstore here in town called "Hastings" that does not have a Gay and Lesbian section of books- so I get to make the choice to withdraw my Gay dollars and spend them elsewhere.

Okay, is this perhaps a major difference between the U.S. viewpoint and Canadian viewpoint? Because for me my government is MINE. It is there to protect the rights of EVERYBODY. If they're doing it right somebody is always going to be pissed off I guess. But as far as discrimination goes, I don't know that anybody has the RIGHT to do that. Different people might very well have differing opinions as to what is discrimination, but the rights of the minority should always be protected. I'd love to hear what others have to say about government interference v.s. societal protections of minorities.

[betenoire]

Originally Posted by suebee

Different people might very well have differing opinions as to what is discrimination, but the rights of the minority should always be protected. I'd love to hear what others have to say about government interference v.s. societal protections of minorities.

I think we feel the same way.

I know that there are people who think that Canada is "less free" than the US is because of our hate speech laws and because we have more groups who are "protected" in Canada than the US does blah blah blah.

And sure, maybe some people in Canada are less free than they would be if they lived in the US. But I know that I myself am MORE free as a Canadian than I would be if I was a US citizen. The only Canadians who are "less free" because of our Charter of Rights and Freedoms are ASSHOLES.

I'm sorry, but that's just the way it is.

Like in Canada you can be charged with a hate crime if you are a Holocaust Denier. OH BUUHUU proof that Canada is less free! No. Holocaust Deniers are assholes - and in Canada assholes are less free. But people like me? More free.

[DapperButch]

Originally Posted by June

Yeah, I think they do. Because I want to reserve that same right as a business owner.

If they want to turn money away, that's their decision to make. If someone came to me and wanted me to do a logo or marketing materials for them, and they were in the business of telling people they would go to Hell if they didn't do X,Y and Z, I would turn them away.

It's no different to me. And also, I would never want to patronize and give money to a business like that, so it's good to know. Find another florist.

[betenoire]

Well, you know. Regardless of how I feel about it - this shop owner DID break the law. It's illegal in her province to refuse business based on race, religion, or sexual orientation. It just is.

This is VERY different from the Knights of Columbus refusing to rent out their hall. The whole point of the Knights of Columbus is that they are a religious organisation, so they are protected (just like a church is protected). A flower shop is not a church. A flower shop is not a religious organisation. Perhaps if she wants to run it like it is a church she needs to rename her shop to "Daisies for Jesus!" or something like that.

[Soon]

Originally Posted by betenoire

Well, you know. Regardless of how I feel about it - this shop owner DID break the law. It's illegal in her province to refuse business based on race, religion, or sexual orientation. It just is.

This is VERY different from the Knights of Columbus refusing to rent out their hall. The whole point of the Knights of Columbus is that they are a religious organisation, so they are protected (just like a church is protected). A flower shop is not a church. A flower shop is not a religious organisation. Perhaps if she wants to run it like it is a church she needs to rename her shop to "Daisies for Jesus!" or something like that.

I should have pointed out that the KofC is a religious organization -- NOT a private business. Every province that I know has protections against discrimination based on sexual orientation (maybe Alberta doesn't? but they would be covered due to the Charter?). So, legally, yes, I think they don't have a case. I guess I was wondering where people felt personally on the issue, but, you are right, the law has been broken as far as I can tell.

As far as I am concerned, yes, a law was broken, but also, personally, I think it is very wrong to deny a service (and a very slippery slope) based on sexuality or gender.

I do appreciate everyone's honesty.

[rainintothesea]

I'm not trying to stir the pot, here, I'm genuinely curious about something. Flowers are one thing, perhaps, no one's going to bleed out if they don't get their flowers (at least I hope not, wow). But do the folks who side with the business owner in this case also agree with the pharmacist who refused to fill the prescription to stop the woman's uncontrolled uterine bleeding due to her moral objections (she would only fill the script if she knew it hadn't been the result of an abortion)? Where does one draw the line?

On the one hand, if someone has a huge moral objection to doing business with me, that's something I'd like to know so that I can take my business elsewhere. There's the whole, "If we don't have free speech, how else will we know who the assholes are?" sort of argument, there. But I think we might be treading in some dangerous territory, too, if we say it's okay to discriminate for whatever reason you like... what kind of discrimination is okay, then, and who sets those boundaries? And, hey, in turn, quis custodiet ipsos custodes? I'm not so sure I'm comfortable with other people making those decisions for me... and I think that when one decides to run a business, one is agreeing that while it might be okay to refuse service to an individual who is being an unreasonable jerkface (that's how I have always read those signs, myself), it's understood that it's NOT okay to refuse service to POC or other generally-agreed-upon protected classes of characteristics that include whole swaths of society.

[Blade]

Originally Posted by rainintothesea

But do the folks who side with the business owner in this case also agree with the pharmacist who refused to fill the prescription to stop the woman's uncontrolled uterine bleeding due to her moral objections (she would only fill the script if she knew it hadn't been the result of an abortion)? Where does one draw the line?

To begin with a pharmacists job is to fill prescriptions. It is none of the pharmacists business for what type of medical reason a Dr prescribes a prescription. A consumer isn't obligated to discuss with pharmacist why they need a certain treatment.

[Spork]

Originally Posted by June

Daisies for Jesus!

Yes, it is wrong and against the law in some places to do that. I would just rather know what a business' policy is so I can make a choice to spend my money there or not.

I think they should have to post signs:

"We do not serve The Gays here"
or
"We will serve you if you're A Gay, but we might piss in your soup"

Posting their true beliefs would probably hit them pretty hard financially because lots of people love The Gays, even if they aren't one.

Heh, I don't think that would be helpful. In my opinion, just a curt statement: "We only serve heterosexuals." While it's still a little bit... harsh to some, it's not the same as just saying "no gays! go away!".

Perhaps, if the business is interested in keeping a "good face", they could show options for the people they will not serve. "We do not serve non-heterosexuals. But here's a list of LGBT-friendly business: blah, blah, blah."

That's what I think.

Originally Posted by rainintothesea

I'm not trying to stir the pot, here, I'm genuinely curious about something. Flowers are one thing, perhaps, no one's going to bleed out if they don't get their flowers (at least I hope not, wow). But do the folks who side with the business owner in this case also agree with the pharmacist who refused to fill the prescription to stop the woman's uncontrolled uterine bleeding due to her moral objections (she would only fill the script if she knew it hadn't been the result of an abortion)? Where does one draw the line?

I think we can't compare some flowers and medicine that can save your life, or heal a sickness.

If that has been allowed to happen, I'm appalled.

Pharmacies and hospitals should comply with their social obligation, first and foremost. Then think of the money.

Again, just my opinion.

[Soon]

So...b/c I made it specific regarding serving people of sexual orientation and gender identity, does that stand for other groups of people?

For example, would it be ok for an owner who hates women or dislikes a certain religion or appearance, due to their personally held convictions, to deny them service based on these factors?

Even though WE KNOW the law doesn't allow it; doesn't the same principle apply?

What other statuses would it be ok to deny service to?
Besides ours?


Those who believe that it is ok to discriminate based on gender orientation and sexual orientation, why is it NOT OK to discriminate against others based on their religious/moral convictions?

[betenoire]

And what if it's not about moral convictions. What if that person is just an asshole - is it still okay then? Are we okay with a "Heterosexuals Only" sign but not with a "Whites Only" sign? What's the difference? Is it because the first is (in some cases) based on religion and the second is based on rampant jackassery?

[julieisafemme]

At some point a business owner would no longer be in business if they start to exclude too many groups. Also many businesses make it very clear to a customer by their service (or lack thereof) that the customer is not particularly welcome. This subtle form of discrimination goes on every day. I don't think the same principles apply.

As far as the florist goes she could have told the couple that she was concerned and why and asked if they might be more comfortable doing business with another florist who would love to have their business. She could reccommend someone who she knew would be happy to serve them. That would the moral thing to do and the best business decision.

Originally Posted by HowSoonIsNow

So...b/c I made it specific regarding serving people of sexual orientation and gender identity, does that stand for other groups of people?

For example, would it be ok for an owner who hates women or dislikes a certain religion or appearance, due to their personally held convictions, to deny them service based on these factors?

Even though WE KNOW the law doesn't allow it; doesn't the same principle apply?

What other statuses would it be ok to deny service to?
Besides ours?


Those who believe that it is ok to discriminate based on gender orientation and sexual orientation, why is it NOT OK to discriminate against others based on their religious/moral convictions?

[Blade]

Originally Posted by HowSoonIsNow

For example, would it be ok for an owner who hates women or dislikes a certain religion or appearance, due to their personally held convictions, to deny them service based on these factors?

I have a friend who owns a restaurant/bar. He doesn't allow men without sleeves in his place and he doesn't allow people who wear their pants with the waist down to the knees. He'll send them out to get a shirt in a minute and he will ask folks to pull their pants up and keep them up in his place

[DomnNC]

I voted yes. I have my own company providing software/hardware solutions to other businesses. I'd hate to be hired to program a system to track gay people for some religious organization, I should have the right to refuse my service to anyone as I see fit, that could all be dependent on a credit check and a client's ability to pay as well. I don't work for free, lol.

[Ashton]

I do think business should have the right to refuse patronage AND without explaination.

The rub comes in when the person refusing is reqeyuiraved to explain why. If I have the right to not shop somewhere why doesnt the shop have the right to refuse service. I dont have to explain not shopping somewhere why should they

Personally I think its a bit hypocritical to say we all have a right to believe as we do and then we save your beliefs are not valid in my eyes therefore you cant use that against me.